Daily Kos

Abortion care safe legal, and rare? No! Throw the damned dice! Lead!

Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:35:09 AM PDT

"Safe, legal, and rare!" ("And I DO mean RARE!" as Hillary recently so emphatically proclaimed.)

Rare???

NO!!!

Sign me up for ENOUGH for ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW. The controversy over how to address the issue of abortion rights politically concerns differing untested beliefs, unexamined assumptions, and being lost without an accurate map from here to there, and that's a crap shoot. Does the way we hold the dice and throw them predictably influence which numbers are on top when they come to rest? Are we more likely to throw winning numbers if we talk to the dice or kiss them? How about standing in a certain pose? Throwing them behind our backs? Warming them in our hands before throwing? Should we let our "gut feelings" tell us to bet our whole stash on one throw if our guts have guts or faint-heartedly withdraw from the game if not?

I wish I could know before throwing.

I can't. It's impossible. But throw I must. Might lose it all! On one throw! Even that might be preferable in the long run to the current painful rotting and falling away bit by bit under the radar of public awareness.

I have no way of knowing with any certainty, but I believe abortion rights are still secure enough among the electorate, if not in the current Supreme Court nor in many legislative bodies, which is amazing in view of the prodigious extent to which abortion rights have been attacked while being so meekly defended and attests to the tenacity of their acceptance by most voters. Some of our strongest allies and advocates are to be found among the millions of women who were "pro-life" until they, or their daughters or sisters or wives or mothers or best friends, got pregnant. But available and accessible abortion care is not a top issue with many voters, especially in such times as these, and I believe that makes it a safe topic to forcefully endorse.

I just do not believe that a politician who would campaign on assertively and loudly telling the truth about abortion rights and abortion care would be taking as big a risk as they all seem to assume, if any.

What is the truth? Let’s briefly review what so-called "pro-life" politicians stand for:

The World Health Organization has estimated that in those parts of the world in which abortion is illegal, about 70,000 thinking, feeling, often desperate women and teenage girls die every year from illegal attempts to abort unwanted pregnancies. That is more than one every 10 minutes dead because they are prohibited by law from accessing safe, legal, professional abortion care. Many times that number are seriously injured and maimed for life.

In addition, every minute, night and day, no holidays or weekends off, around the world
one woman dies of complications of pregnancy and childbirth (every minute),
ten teenage girls undergo unsafe illegal abortions (every minute),
thirteen infants under twelve months old die (every minute),
fifty seven people contract an STD (every minute),
eleven people are infected with HIV (every minute),
and the already-burgeoned-beyond-the-planet's-capacity-to-sustain human population increases by one hundred fifty more people (every minute),

all sanctioned, encouraged, and even enforced by our callous right-wing-dominated government through international interference with and withholding of funding from worldwide reproductive health and sex education programs. all with the vigorous support and reinforcement of the  Roman Catholic Church.

Let's not forget the women brutalized and incarcerated by law enforcement in those countries in which the Roman Catholic Church has pushed for and won the criminalization of abortion and achieved that cruel piece of what they believe to be "God's will on Earth be done." In countries such as Chile and El Salvador women having not only induced abortions, but spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), are routinely subjected to police investigations and interrogation, arrested, and incarcerated. Many women having natural miscarriages are so afraid of such persecution and prosecution that they avoid seeking medical care in such situations, and some (many I would think) die.

Abortions are quite "rare" in those countries. Safe, professional abortion care is virtually non-existent and exists only underground in those countries, where finding and accessing it among the confused array of perilous incompetents is a crap shoot for life and health that women regularly and in great numbers lose. That is what so-called "pro-life" voters and politicians stand for. Have our values and compassion sunk so low that we can't oppose that? They won't stop until they succeed in creating conditions in this country mirroring those in the Third World and in nations such as Chile and El Salvador. Or until we stop them at the polls.

I defy anyone to define "rare."  Well, on second thought, I'll define it in its current political usage. MY definition is: rare: a transparently manipulative, completely relative and subjective adjective used by politicians as a weasel-word to evade meaningfully addressing the subject while pretending to be "moral" and a "good Christian" (two other concepts that defy definition). It's even worse (and less honest) than, "I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm personally against abortion." The latter statement is at least not as easily interpreted to be supportive of medically absurd  TRAP laws and other restrictions that are right now leaving a great many women and teenage girls out in the cold and blowing snow, more and more each day knocking at death's door.

Abortion rights are not even regarded as a "top issue." I think people just tend to forget, or just find it easy to ignore and deny, or for some reason just don't realize, just how big this issue is in importance, if not popularity. If we lose even parts of it, as we have been of late by the imposition of medically absurd restrictions that have put abortion care beyond the reach of many women (especially, of course, the economically disadvantaged, as always, but now also more and more those women who just can't jump the hurdles of inappropriate state-mandated restrictions), the results are unconscionably cruel. Women (each of whom is someone's mother, daughter, wife, or sister), right now, are sick and dying who don't need to be, the numbers of such women are growing as these TRAP laws are passed by more states, and Roe vs. Wade is hanging by a thread at the mercy of a SCOTUS already composed of a majority of anti-abortion Roman Catholics.

Of course, I could just be a wishful thinker, but I believe that abortion rights, IF only a strong message were delivered of the importance of abortion rights and of the extreme cruelty of the "pro-life" agenda, could be a winning issue. That, of course, would mean making it a "top issue." It would mean LEADING - doing what reality and human compassion demand: the right thing.

The democrats, I think, would profit by taking on this issue head-on with balls. By being loudly and unapologetically pro-reproductive freedom and saying why in clear and certain terms without following it with a disclaimer. By saying proudly "I am pro-choice and here's why . . . !!!"  Not "I'm pro-choice, (weasel, weasel) but I'm personally opposed to abortion," or "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." ("And I DO mean RARE," as Hillary said recently.)

I don’t care how many abortions there are. I just want there to be enough to meet the needs of women and teenage girls not to be forced into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term against their wills and despite possible devastation of their lives, their health, their hopes and dreams, their employment and careers, their families, and their general well-being.

I strongly believe that defending abortion rights and other issues targeted so irrationally and callously by religious extremists are [1] issues of far too heavy import to ignore or whisper about and [2] winning issues politically if addressed rationally and assertively.

And any politician would certainly improve his/her image as a leader in that manner as compared to ducking and running every time abortion rights are mentioned.

Toss the damned dice!

Tags: Abortion, religion, republicans, democrats, supreme court, reproductive rights, health, medicine (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 283 comments

  •  Tip jar (39+ / 0-)

    Seven come a better world!

    No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

    by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:40:24 AM PDT

    •  Outstanding Post, Beket!!!! (9+ / 0-)

      You took the words right out of my mouth!

      I get so sick of Pro-Choice politicians (mostly Democrats) act so apologetic about being Pro-Choice by constantly prefacing their position by saying that they "believe" abortion is "wrong", "tragic", that it should become "rare", etc. By doing this, the Democrats continually allow themselves to be put on the defensive by religious right, Anti-Choice Republican politicans.

      Yet this could EASILY be a winning issue for the Democrats and the Democrats could easily put Anti-Choice politicans on the defensive by asking Anti-Choicers the following questions:

      1.  "Sir, if we should adopt your position that abortion is "murder", then you need to explain why we should not shut down every fertility clinic in this country since thousands of '"unborn lives' are destroyed in such clinics every year, just like in abortion clinics." Democrats should go on by saying, "Sir (or madam), since you advocate "protecting" unborn life from the moment of conception, then your position requires that fertility clinics be outlawed as well, since tens of thousands of embryos are destroyed each year in these clinics. If we accept your premise that all unborn life needs full legal protection, then this requires outlawing fertility clinics as well." In other words, put THEM in the position to defend the absurdity of their positions instead of allowing them to put US in the position to defend ours. Of course, the vast majority of Americans won't stand for having fertility clinics shut down but we need to educate the public that the so-called "Pro-Life" position requires this. By boxing the Pro-Lifers in on this crucial point which exposes the absurdity of their position, we clearly come out ahead in the court of public opinion which then strenghens our legal position in many parts of this country.
      1.  We should challenge the Pro-Lifers to clarify what punishment should be inflicted upon women who would get illegal abortions should Roe vs. Wade get overturned and abortion inevititably becomes illegal in at least some places (which is completely unacceptable anywhere because women's lives are at stake). If abortion is indeed "murder" like these "Pro-Lifers" continually charge, then women who get abortions are murderers and should be treated no differently from any other murderer and punished accordingly. We should challenge these "Pro-Lifers" be be consistent in their positions that abortion is murder by forcing them to say that we should round up our friends, aunts, neighbors, aunts, daughters, cousins, mothers, colleagues, etc., haul them off in handcuffs, put them on trial for murder and throw them in prison (or give them the death penalty). This picture will horrify the vast majority of Americans but this scenario is the inevitable result of the consequences that would follow a "Pro-Life" position that abortion is indeed, murder. If the "Pro-Lifer" then says that they only want to prosecute the doctors and not the women (as the leaders of the Anti-Choice movement say), then we should point out that they are inherently accepting the premise of the Pro-Chooice position that killing an already born person is materially different from aborting a fetus. Afterall, if a women hires a hitman to kill her four year old, everyone agrees that she should be prosecuted and put in jail. This is what happens if we murder an already born person and rightly so. Yet the Anti-Choice position holds that there is no material difference whatsoever between "killing the unborn" and killing already born people. But so many of them also turn around and say that women who get illegal abortions should not be prosecuted but that only the doctors (& whoever else helps them) should be prosecuted. We should put them on the defensive to explain why they completely undermine their own premise that "abortion is murder" when they actually accept the Pro-Choice premise that killing already born people is completely different from aborting fetuses (as mentioned) because they don't want to prosecute the woman who is actually a contract killer under their own reasoning. Afterall, this woman hired someone to "bump off" her "unborn child" under the Anti-Choice premise. If the Anti-Choicers remain consistent in their position by stating that women who get abortions should be prosecuted & imprisoned, then we should run T.V. ads showing sympathetic women being hauled out of their homes in handcuffs, humiliated in the courtroom, tried for "murder" and then rotting in prison while their children at home have to endure life without their mother there to care for them.

      Afterall, this is the invevitable consequence for women who get illegal abortion under the Anti-Choice position. WE SHOULD HOLD THEM TO IT. BY DOING SO, WE IMMEDIATELY GO ON THE OFFENSIVE BY PUTTING THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE WHICH THEREFORE MAKES THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION A WINNING ISSUE FOR DEMOCRATS.

      Now, If we can just convince these wimply Democrats that Choice is a winning isse.

      If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

      by VirginiaBlue on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great diary, beket! (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, megaera

      A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

      by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:31:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My understanding (21+ / 0-)

    of the usage of "rare" by Democrats was that they encouraged contraception usage and responsible sex ed in schools so that you wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies to begin with.  That said, you make a valid point about the vagueness of the word and the potential danger in not being explicit.

    Insight into change teaches us hope. No matter how bad the situation, anything is possible. - Buddha

    by zenbowl on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:44:42 AM PDT

    •  Right -- "rare" = "largely unnecessary" (12+ / 0-)

      If it's safe and legal, it's only going to be rare if we stop unwanted pregnancies.  I like the Clinton frame on this one.

      If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

      ~ Umberto Eco

      by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:47:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then it's passing strange (26+ / 0-)

        that no one advocates making unwanted pregnancies "safe, legal and rare."

        In 2007 SL&R has become a dog whistle, intended to pass right over the heads of certain tone-deaf constituencies. Ten years ago -- before access to "safe and legal" abortion care became so "rare" in many regions as to be nonexistent -- it meant one thing, but today it means something else altogether.

        Today -- especially with the addendum of "and I mean RARE" -- SL&R has been reduced to a pander for the votes of anti-abortion fundamentalists.

        •  Exactly! nt (7+ / 0-)

          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:57:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that would be a non-sequitur, wouldn't it? (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          markw, Alegre, cpresley, marykk

          Yes, unwanted pregancies should be "safe," and there actually is an issue related to that regarding access to pre-natal care, but that's not the issue at hand here.  And as for unwanted pregnancies being "legal" -- well, maybe Justice Scalia wants to allow laws that would criminalize them, but there's not much of a constituency.

          "Rare" is modified by "legal," regardless of whether it is italicized.  It's a way of neutralizing the abortion issue with voters who might otherwise vote against all of their other preferences solely on this basis.  It's less "pandering to fundamentalists" than reassuring the likes of progressive but devout Catholics and mainstream Protestants that we all have a common goal to stop unwanted pregnancies.

          If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

          ~ Umberto Eco

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:59:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ...or it could be seen as an open door (7+ / 0-)

            ...to make abortion really rare by outlawing them altogether...just saying...it is an example how political framing can possibly come back and bite one one the assumption...

            "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

            by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ...bite one IN the assumption... (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, annrose, Beket

              "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

              by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:03:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thats exactly what has (5+ / 0-)

              happened- through state restrictions and the recent SCOTUS ruling that for the first time since Roe ignores womens health.  So, this innocuous sounding campaign slogan we (as pro-choicers) supported (cause believe it or not folks, we'd love to see the need for abortions rarer)- has been turned on its head and used against women to eliminate safe abortion in all but about 10-12% of U. S. counties.
              How many women must die?

              •  So *this slogan* is what did the trick? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                william f harrison

                If we hadn't developed this slogan, none of this would be happening?  Do you have even a shred of evidence for the potency of this slogan?

                I tend to think that the present negative trend would have happened without this slogan, largely because we kept losing state and federal elections due in large part to our not caring enough about what voters think and how to convince them.  Someone in this diary has blithely stated that anyone who opposes us on these issues is an irredeemable tool of the Religious Right.  That approach to politics sure works, huh?

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:31:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Illegal? Hillary? LOL! Sorry But There's No Way (3+ / 0-)

              in HELL she'd back that or even allow it to happen.

              No other politician's fought harder or longer to help us defend our right to choose than Clinton.  This diary is alarmist where Clinton's concerned.

              This coming from a feminist, pro-choice activist of over 30 years.

              •  Its already happened and continues (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                annrose, Beket, Jain

                to happen- and in her current position there's not much Hillary can do to stop it.  So we want to know and have others know IF she's elected prez, that she will stop it!  That she WILL sign the Freedom of Choice act when it passes; that she will see that it is enforced; that she will have removed from office any federal judge who refuses to follow the law; that she understand and values women's lives EVEN if they need an abortion- and will do all within her power to protect and preserve access and availability to safe abortion care.
                Women's lives depend on it!

                •  You Guys Have Lost Me - You Really Have (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  markw, william f harrison

                  I'm sorry but I can't think of a single politician who's more dedicated to fighting for our rights than Clinton.

                  If you can think of one then by all means - vote for him.

                  As far as I'm concerned - Hillary's our best shot at making all you've advocated for a reality.

                  And this coming from a feminist and pro-choice activist of over 30 years.

                  •  I widsh I could rec this comment a 1000 times. (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Alegre, projahstice

                    A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                    by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:52:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I admire you a great deal (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Beket, julifolo

                      and I hear you're close to Hillary. can you please convince her to stop the goddamn dogwhistling handwaving garbage and speak out STRONGLY for abortion and for feminism????  the "safe legal and rare" formulation has always pissed me off.

                      •  "People who say 'rare' don't mean it" (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Beket, Womantrust

                        That's a snark I've had to deal with. Luckily, he couldn't pin that on me -- I only use the slogan "safe, legal and accessable".

                        If your local service workers don't get a living wage (including healthcare) then your local social contract is broken

                        by julifolo on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:50:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  In the past two elections we have (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Beket, Womantrust

                    seen other great candidates lose their way due to ambiguous wording and pandering to the middle .  Sen.Clinton  does not have an " get out of jail free card"in order to  exempt herself  from the pitfalls of running for presidential  office.
                    Her  advisors and pollsters etc.  tell her things  that they think will help her gain leverage in the elections.Over time  her gut instinct on an  issue becomes blurred amongst all  the YES people and piles of statistics stacked  in front of her .It is human nature when cut off from the people .
                    I think many politicians  forget how to take and stand in the fight for the almighty vote.
                    Abortion and abortion care  are already  a   rare and marginalized service that are very  difficult for many poor,young ,rural and other women to access.
                    This pandering to the middle and  ambiquous wording has lost the Democrats elections before. I would hate to see them squander the lead that has been given to them by the current administration , one year and counting before the next election as a result of non specific wording   and bad advice.
                    We see it here - we saw it in the Gay sponsored debate.
                    A backbone counts for something - that is how the voting community sees the Republicans vs Dems so why don't the candidates get that?
                    The Dems  have been  perceived as wishy wasy and scared to take a stand on anything.
                    Well it IS time to roll that dice and tell the people EXACTLY where they  stand not approximately.

                    That just doesn't cut it in Peoria or Iowa or New Hampshire.

                •  I have no doubt that Hillary will do all those (0+ / 0-)

                  things, and the idea she wouldn't is simply an insane reading of everything she has stood and worked for on this issue all her career.  I am sorry to be in opposition to so many of my friends on the issue of Hillary, but I know her, and none of them do.

                  A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                  by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  "Illegal" is (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, annrose, Womantrust

                well established and on the move NOW! Mounting thousands of women and teenage girls are unable to procure safe, legal abortions NOW!

                It is not enough to be in favor of reproductive rights and to endorse a political strategy that evades and soft-peddles the issue. To "not allow it to happen" requires a firm, forceful, unapologetic endorsement. "Safe, legal, and rare" is not that and does not accomplish anything IMHO but . . .

                Oh, what's the use? I've already said that in the diary.

                You seem to be defending Hillary. I'm not opposed to Hillary at all. But I would like to see all the democratic candidates, and certainly the one who gets the nomination, treat this issue like the red meat it is rather than as crunchy granola which it ain't.

                No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:16:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Speaking of NOW - You Do Realize They've Endorsed (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  markw, Beket, william f harrison

                  Hillary - right?

                  Speaks volumes in my book.  But then what do I know? I'm just a feminist and pro-choice activist going back maybe 30 years.

                  •  No, hadn't heard that but (6+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Rebecca, annrose, Beket, Alegre, arlene, Jain

                    would certainly expect since she's a Dem, woman and publicly women's rights including "pro-choice" even if qualified by 'rare'.  Perhaps we just need to get some fine tuning done.  Like commitment to restore funding for programs that assist girls and women in health, education and welfare; like signing and enforcing the Freedom of Choice Act; like restoring voting rights to those who've been denied by 'irregularities'; like ending our Iraq 'involvement; like growing the economy which always improves womens lives.    We know that replacing the word 'rare' with 'available' (or accessible)as it pertains to abortion care can begin the process of opening up dialogue with candidates who can help roll back some of the losses we've had. And we feel even those who aren't solidly pro-choice (a big voting bloc) can support this position; tho we know that those who are anti-choice will never- just as they don't support sex education programs, funding for birth control at publicly funded clinics, school based clinics providing comprehensive health care to our children and many other issues they believe are best left up to 'God'- whatever their meaning of that is.
                    And this is what I know- from being in the trenches as a feminist since the l950's- before we even heard the word.

                  •  and you are the only one? (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Beket, Alegre, megaera, william f harrison

                    If you did a poll of an abortion diary you'd find that most of the people involved are active, proud feminists.  Just because we are feminists doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything.  We can disagree.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I agree totally with you, Alegre. (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, Beket

                My friends feel that Hillary is speaking as a Karl Rove type politician here.  I totally disagree with this view.  However, I do wish Hillary would change her message to safe, legal and rarely needed.

                Or perhaps even safe lagal and accessable since those of us who have been so heavily involved in this issue for years are well aware of just how INaccessable it has become for so many of the very young, the poor and even much of the middle class.

                A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

                by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  you're confused (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Rebecca, Beket, Womantrust

            It's a way of neutralizing the abortion issue with voters who might otherwise vote against all of their other preferences solely on this basis.  It's less "pandering to fundamentalists" than reassuring the likes of progressive but devout Catholics and mainstream Protestants that we all have a common goal to stop unwanted pregnancies.

            no. "devout catholics" are instructed by the church hierarchy to be anti abortion no matter what the situation. "mainstream protestants" tend to be prochoice. and pro feminism, for that matter. it's the loony evangelicals and bornagain "protestants"
            who are antichoice. they are not considered "mainstream".

            get the connection between anti feminist and anti choice?

      •  OK. (10+ / 0-)

        [1] Define "rare."
        [2] What is your stake in its being "rare," whatever that means.
        [3] Do you realize that what "making abortion 'rare' means to many is making it less available and accessible?

        How about coming right out like a big boy or girl and saying "Safe, legal, and available to all who for their own reasons believe need it (and some who KNOW they do)?

        No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

        by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about not picking a fight (10+ / 0-)

          by using incendiary phrases like "coming right out like a big boy or girl"?

          My stake is that Democrats have lost many elections by failing to hold onto progressive voters who are, for whatever reason, anti-abortion, and I want to elect Democrats for myriad reasons among which maintaining abortion rights is paramount.  So do not fucking patronize me by pretending that only those willing to stick a thumb in the eye of voters we need can understand the stakes.  Yes, I realize that some people who will be mollified by this phrase think that it means reducing access.  I hope that these people will be disappointed, if that's what they think they're buying, without being alienated -- because we do have interests in common that elementary politics dictates that we do stress, and to be honest we should pursue them assiduously.

          I defined "rare" way up above: "largely unnecessary."

          Now, would you like to discuss this politely "like a big boy or girl"?

          If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

          ~ Umberto Eco

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:06:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, drop the chip off your shoulder. (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Rebecca, annrose, megaera

            How about not picking a fight by using incendiary phrases like "coming right out like a big boy or girl"?

            That was not directed at you. Let me add a clarification:

            How about (the democratic candidates) coming right out like a big boy or girl and saying "Safe, legal, and available to all who for their own reasons believe they need it (and some who KNOW they do)?"

            and the phrase "like a big boy or girl" was tongue-in-cheek anyway, not belligerent. I should have inserted a happy face: ;-)

            I want the democrats to win for a myriad of reasons, too - and how! And I believe, as I said in the diary, that forcefully telling the truth about the importance of abortion rights and the cruelty of the so-called "pro-life" movement can be a winning position electorally, as well as enlighten and activate many more voters than we are likely to win over from the Christian Right no matter how it is phrased.

            We disagree. In your case no less than in mine the disagreement arises from an untested belief.

            I'm not much into fighting, but I will struggle to be understood.  ;-) (Didn't forget the happy face this time)

            No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

            by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:38:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where did I say the phrase was directed at me? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              william f harrison

              Frankly, I don't care much what you say about me in this context.  I care much more about your infantilizing the person (whoever it is) for whom I'll be working to elect as President next year.

              I'm not sure what beliefs of mine you think are untested.  You've read the polls?

              My main message to you is that we need to distinguish between convincing the public and campaigning to the public.  The former is not the same as the latter, and the slogan in question is all about the latter.

              If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

              ~ Umberto Eco

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:30:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A fatal flaw in Democratic thinking (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, megaera, Jain

                IMHO is:

                I'm not sure what beliefs of mine you think are untested. You've read the polls?

                [1] Your belief that aggressively defending abortion rights while denouncing the cruelty of the "pro-life" position is a losing political strategy is untested.

                [2] Polls can be influenced to change by exactly what I advocate in my diary - strong leadership. Otherwise they will likely remain steady as we steadily continue to lose ground and women suffer and die.

                No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:20:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've moved the goalposts (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm all for aggressively defending abortion rights.  I'm fine with denouncing the cruelty of the pro-life position, at least where it's not clearly a loser with the public (or do you deny that any such constituencies exist.)  What I'm discussing here is what is in the title or your diary, which is whether it undercuts either of those ends to argue the Clinton position that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

                  How do you know that the Clinton position is untested, by the way?  I would be, frankly, shocked if the Clintons didn't test it to death in the 90s, and Gore and Kerry after that.  That they continue to use it suggests it must test pretty well.

                  Can polls be changed by strong leadership?  Sure.  Does omitting the only conciliatory bit of jujitsu in the Democratic argument here constitute good leadership?  Is it, in fact, a requirement for it?  Sorry, but I won't grant you that point.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:55:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Poking a stick (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Beket, arlene, megaera, Jain

            So do not fucking patronize me by pretending that only those willing to stick a thumb in the eye of voters we need can understand the stakes.

            So standing up for our principles is poking a stick in the eyes of voters.

            I can see why you are so averse to us advocating for our moral position if you see it as not participating in changing the political spectrum away from the far right and as just a poking the stick into the eye of someone to get a reaction.  

            Can we advocate for our principles or is it only the other side that can state their principles and have morals?  It seems to be a big discussion within the party of how can we regain the moral vote.  Do we regain the moral vote by just accepting the other sides definition of what is moral? Do we allow them to set the standard for what is moral?  

            We see women suffering and dying from the effects of their moral stance.  Can we argue that or do we have to be afraid they will be offended by disagreeing with them?  Will there be any people who actually agree with us and find the moral posturing by the other side as offensive.  

            I remember the Terry Schiavo spectacle.  The Republicans and the MSM both expected the public to rally for the heroic Republicans and to be horrified by the dastardly Democrats who would allow a woman to be murdered.  Funny thing.  The public was more horrified by the governmental intrusion into a private family matter.

            Allowing them to have the stage to make their arguments without rebuttal is what leads to polls where we lose.  When people see what these people really stand for as in the Schiavo case will they still poll the same?  The only way we can find out is to advocate for our position.  By abdicating that responsibility because they right now don't poll well for us is a losing position long term and short term.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Sticking a thumb," not "poking a stick" (0+ / 0-)

              If you're going to quote me out of context, at least do it accurately.

              As I've said below, I think that your presenting your position, and educating the public about these issues, is fine -- more than fine, actually.  But that is not what this diary is about.  It is about whether politicians, in the course of campaigning, should take an uncompromising position on the question of whether abortions should be "rare" in their quick slogan addressing the issue.  You've convinced me that it rankles you but not that it actually does any harm.

              There is a necessary and proper distinction between advocates and politicians (at least those not coming from extremely safe districts/electorates.)  By all means, do your job.  But let them, armed with reality-based information about what the relevant electorate will accept, do theirs.

              Oh, and by the way -- I do not argue that abortions should be "rare" because they are "immoral," but because they are usually, at least in the experience of women I've known who have had them, episodes that they would have preferred to avoid and thus far inferior to avoiding unwanted pregnancies.  I think the public is smart enough to get that message, which puts the emphasis right where we'd like it: supporting contraception first.

              If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

              ~ Umberto Eco

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:28:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want Democrats to win (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Beket

            if they're spouting verbiage designed to appeal to the anti feminist, anti choice crowd. that does not interest me at all. yes, we have all heard about the importance of the majority and the supreme court nominations yada yada, so don't even go there.

            I say, the dems should leverage the awful Iraq war which everyone hates. to my mind, the more anti war they are, the more feminist, pro choice and liberal they can be. strangely they haven't figured this out yet.

      •  It sounded good at first but now? (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        skyesNYC, annrose, arlene, bic momma, megaera

        It doesn't work for us.  It works for the anti-choice zealots as they work in state legislatures to legally limit access to and availability to abortion.  

        If it really worked for us we would have them on the defensive about their attempts to make birth control illegal, expensive and unaccessible.  Right now we have the Democratic party passing a bill for more money to go to right-wing abstinence only organizations.  How many kids are legally only able to be taught abstinence with contraceptives only mentioned to bring up the (propaganda) down sides of them?  Our side won't even stand strong on birth control.  

        How does rare work for us?  It allows politicians to use DLC type blurring of the sides arguments.  We've seen how well the DLC ideas work for our other political arguments.  Why would you think that we can draw voters in by using them with abortion.

        Why is their side able to stand up strong and bellow out their principles and our side has to pretend that we don't really stand for what we stand for.  I'm personally against abortion but....   I'm for safe, legal and rare.  It's all part of saying I'm for it but I'm not really for it.  I'm a moral person and not like those crazy loony liberals over there.  

        Why is it that we have to accept that they are the moral ones in this argument or people won't vote for us? We have an argument coming from a strong moral position.  Why do we have to mute our strong moral argument because it doesn't match up with theirs?

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When it comes to abortion policy (0+ / 0-)

          we are making decisions for other people.  There is nothing in SL&R that requires one to be personally against abortion.  I am personally for women doing what they see fit in accordance with their own moral beliefs.  There is a taboo about abortion, it's true -- we're a long way away from having the first elected who admits to having had an abortion, though we've surely already had one -- and the existence of that taboo should give you pause about how much the public is behind us and where the problem lies.

          Again, once you get behind the explicit question of whether women have a right to abortion -- where the public supports us -- you implicate other values.  Parental notification?  Then you're implicating people's beliefs about parental versus state control over childrearing.  (I'm not saying it is right that such values are implication; I'm simply stating that they are.)  Medicare payment for abortions?  Then we're implicating beliefs about taxes, "smaller government," and yes, racism and class bias.  These are not "moral issues" at that level; the problem is that they move further away from fundamental beliefs about abortion itself.

          You ask "how does 'rare' work for us?"  Here's one way.  We can say that we don't even want to talk about all of these other issues until we have worked together to make abortions as rare as possible by ensuring the fewest number of unwanted pregnancies.  Then we're using the wedge issue that cuts against them -- their unwillingness to teach about any birth control other than abstinence -- against them as a way of not arguing about issues that cut against us.

          If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

          ~ Umberto Eco

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:26:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But we're not (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Jain

            We can say that we don't even want to talk about all of these other issues until we have worked together to make abortions as rare as possible by ensuring the fewest number of unwanted pregnancies.  Then we're using the wedge issue that cuts against them -- their unwillingness to teach about any birth control other than abstinence -- against them as a way of not arguing about issues that cut against us.

            But we're not.  The same politicians you advocate we support because of the D after their name won't take on those issues.  When our side gives the right-wing abstinence only groups more funding and keeps them not only legal but required we aren't winning the issue.  

            You say how we can use the issue.  Beket has told you how it is being used. We have to look at the real world here and not with what it should be.  The problem is that by keeping with the strategy of blurring the distinction between us and saying we really think abortion is bad and a tragedy always we basically say the anti-choice people are right to everyone. It's hard to argue against the legislation moiv and Beket are talking about when you've already ceded the moral argument.  I'll predict that you won't find many taking your way of dealing with it but rather more acceptance of further laws like the abstinence only one.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:02:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, yes, I would say that abortion is "bad" (0+ / 0-)

              in the sense that a tonsillectomy or hysterectomy or prostate surgery is "bad."  You want to avoid the need for any of them if you can -- and, in this case, through contraceptive education and use, you largely can.  That's not a judgment about morality, any more than I'd be making a judgment about the above surgeries; it's a judgment about hedonics.

              And if you don't say abortion is "bad" in this sense, then you play into the crackpot notion that the "abortion industry" wants to increase the number of abortions for profit.  I'd say that abortion providers should be considered to be like dentists in the public eye: they aren't trying to create more cavities, but they will perform extractions when necessary, even though people don't like that surgery either.

              This doesn't seem too inherently complicated to me, and is much more likely to survive rebuttal robustly than a stance that denies that abortion is something that, ideally, we would like to avoid.  If that's even your argument, at this point.

              If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

              ~ Umberto Eco

              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:39:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Abortion should be treated (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Beket, Major Danby, Granco

                just like any other form of medical care.  Unfortunately, it's the only one that has a minority of the population fanatically determined to make it illegal.  Many of the arguments you are using have been gone over again and again on these abortion diaries.  I in fact used heart surgery to make the point that while no one wants to have heart surgery we are all exceedingly glad to have it available when we need it.  

                a stance that denies that abortion is something that, ideally, we would like to avoid.  If that's even your argument, at this point.

                Sigh

                You know you're walking into a group that has been discussing this for some time now and you're sure we don't know what we're talking about.  I would suggest you actually read some abortion diaries before you make assumptions about what we believe.  You didn't even know the history of Beket and moiv and and you certainly couldn't name any of the other experts who have been so gracious as to bring us their expertise and experience.  

                Everyone on these diaries thinks that it's better to avoid abortions.  That is a right-wing talking point that shouldn't have been insinuated.  

                I have found your diaries to be very informative and appreciated them even when I disagreed with you.  I wish you could have granted the same respect back.  

                Thank you

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I trust that you are all very informed and smart (0+ / 0-)

                  about abortion policy.  And perhaps I should have gotten the hell out of this from the outset, as I suspect most people would have.  (I don't see bailing out with an eye roll as a gesture of respect, though; quite the opposite.)  But the reason I stayed -- although I will now accept your invitation to leave -- is because this is not simply an abortion diary.  It is, with due (and real) respect, a diary on framing a political issue and campaigning to the public as well, and that is as much my area as abortion policy and the stances that should be taken by reproductive rights advocates is yours.

                  I'm managing a campaign in a conservative district this cycle for a candidate that, believe me, you would love to see in Congress.  He would -- I'll say will -- be the best representative this district could possibly elect.  And of course I will adopt the "safe, legal and rare" frame for this issue, not because I don't care about women's feelings but because it puts the focus in the election exactly where it ought to be: on the fundamentalist (and fundamentalist-pandering) crusade to drive away the very measures that could improve contraceptive use and render a larger portion of the abortion debate moot.  I believe that I can sell that truth in my district.  I believe that the approach taken here would, in my district, be a certain loser.  I believe, in short, that I cannot possibly do a better job of furthering the powerfully expressed interests of women regarding reproductive health than to take this course.

                  What I'm hearing here is that this is a betrayal and a moral failing, from people who know a hell of a lot about abortion providers and the psychology and sociology of the abortion debate, but not (so far as I can tell) that much about campaign messaging.

                  Do I take it personally?  Yes.  Enough to argue here for hours.  But that reaction is not (at least in my view and intention) a gesture of disrespect, but because I actually do care about what the people in this subcommunity of DKos -- which I have not entered before and will try to remember not to enter again -- have to say.  But it doesn't lead me to reject what I know from my own areas of expertise.

                  I am sorry if I've ruined people's days, although I've certainly provided ample opportunity for people to support one another and produce the sort of writing that only comes out under challenge.  If this gives any sense of how the arguments presented here sound to someone working on campaign messaging, there is at least that.

                  As I've said a few times here, the cautions I would place on politicians in other than clearly safe districts are not ones that I would place on activists -- we certainly do need for you (plural) to advocate strongly and well.  I wish you success in that.  As we used to say, A Luta Continua.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:35:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  well okay (0+ / 0-)

                so let's say abortion providers are like dentists.

                in that case, the anti choice folks would be analogous to advocates of cavities, abscesses, and rotten teeth.

                why should we be catering to such people?

      •  when you say (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Beket, Granco

        "rare" = "largely unnecessary"

        what do you think the 40 million women in this country who have had abortions think about that statement?  To me you are judging them saying that their abortion was largely unnecessary...certainly NOT a wise slogan for someone who needs their vote.

        •  Jesus Christ, are y'all (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Major Danby

          deliberately working as hard as you can to misunderstand what the Major is saying?  I am leaving this isssue right now before I say something very hurtful to so many of my friends.  This reminds me of my very dramatic five year old grand daughter working hard to set up a good cry about something that she has deliberately induced by some act against her little sister.  I am sick of this discussion.

          A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

          by william f harrison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:06:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I believe that women should not have abortions (0+ / 0-)

          if they are not pregnant.  That is, by largely preventing unwanted pregnancies, we render the total number of abortions that would otherwise have occurred "largely unnecessary."  And I don't think it should have been that hard to figure this out.

          If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

          ~ Umberto Eco

          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:31:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I have always felt that the word "rare" was a (12+ / 0-)

      way to concede a power shift of conviction of the importance of reproductive freedom for women in order to soft-peddle a candidate's support of upholding Roe v Wade. I am more inclined to feel my reasoning is correct because of the lack of strength amd immediacy of following up the "rare" with a rock-solid stance on comprehensive birth control and education...it should be one sentence...not an afterthought of clarification...

      "Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery." ---Jack Paar

      by bic momma on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Safe, legal and rare" (15+ / 0-)

      is a sound bite.

      This is is reality:

      more and more those women who just can't jump the hurdles of inappropriate state-mandated restrictions), the results are unconscionably cruel. Women (each of whom is someone's mother, daughter, wife, or sister), right now, are sick and dying who don't need to be

      It's the reality on the ground today, as seen by Beket and several other users here who see and live it every day.

      This is something I would like to understand: How many women's lives are we willing to sacrifice in service to expedience?

      •  Name *one single policy* regarding abortion (5+ / 0-)

        that you favor and that you think is foreclosed by the employment of the motto "safe, legal, and rare," and prepare for me to disagree with you in all likelihood.

        If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

        ~ Umberto Eco

        by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Already detailed in (8+ / 0-)

          Beket's diary.  Debate?   there is no debate.

          •  "there is no debate." (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            markw, Alegre, marykk

            What is it that you think I'm doing here, interpretive dance?

            If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

            ~ Umberto Eco

            by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:44:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Looks like toying with the value (7+ / 0-)

              of womens lives and the very serious problem we're discussing about lack of access or availability to a desperately needed component of health care- laced with sarcasm.  

              •  Because I disagree with you about (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                markw, Alegre, marykk, Mother of Zeus

                the political utility of a slogan that itself does not address access issues, but that has helped to defuse an issue that has been difficult for Democrats and therefore helped keep us out of a position where we could not do anything to solve these problems, I am "toying with the value of women's lives"?

                You know, I don't often say this, but -- as one active in the movement since the 1970s -- you owe me an apology.  Until then, I don't have more to say to you.

                Oh, and the "sarcasm" was in regards to your contention that "there is no debate" about how to proceed here.  My "interpretive dance" remark was intended as gentle.  This isn't: your sticking your fingers in your ears, chanting "la la la la la!", and pretending that there is no debate -- that, by the way, is hyperbole and metaphor rather than sarcasm -- does not actually make the debate go away.

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:14:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not worth reply. (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, megaera
                •  You've been around here long enough (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  markw, Major Danby

                  to know that this is fruitless.  I'm counting the minutes until you are informed that you have a hidden pro-life agenda.  It won't matter how firmly pro-choice you are.  Nothing will matter.  

                  Life is too short to spend your time in this STFU diary.

                  •  I retract that comment (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    moiv, Beket, Major Danby

                    I had a gut reaction because I have been so outrageously slammed in the past - not by this diarist or folks participating here - but it was wrong to toss that judgment off without thinking or even reading the comment thread.  I see that the discussion here has managed to remain useful.  Sorry.

                    •  No problem (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      markw

                      I do respect the people I'm arguing with here.  They're right in respect to policy; but in some ways wrong in respect to campaigning.  But some of them truly do not seem to care for results, but only for being able to say later on that they held the right position.  That's worth engaging and opposing.

                      If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                      ~ Umberto Eco

                      by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:58:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Or perhaps we do care about results (6+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        annrose, Beket, julifolo, arlene, Jain, Womantrust

                        and just disagree with you on methods.  When we've watched a strategy that has shown no benefits and many detriments being used by our politicians we would like to see a change in strategy.  

                        You haven't shown how this policy benefits us.  You tell us it allows people who are mushy on abortion to continue to vote for us.  The problem with that strategy is that it does nothing to give them reasons to be pro-choice.  Pro-choice includes people who are personally opposed to it.  Why are they pro-choice?  Many people would accept the pro-choice position if they were given a good moral reason to be pro-choice.  

                        Right now one of the largest platforms for discussing this our political candidates for office is completely dominated by the anti-choice argument.  The Republicans come out and make a strong moral argument against abortion.  (We'll ignore the lying they do to make that argument)  The Democrats stand up and say well you're right abortion is awful and tragic but ...  The message is very clear.  The anti-choice side has a moral argument and we don't.  The results are clear.  We continue to lose ground year after year.  You can't win a political argument unless you're willing to make it.  Having the people we choose as our representatives afraid to argue it shows that we don't really believe in our position.  

                        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                        by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:44:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I wish I could rec that 1,000 times! nt (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          annrose

                          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

                          by Beket on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:27:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Again, we are losing ground because (0+ / 0-)

                          we are losing elections.  You don't have to go beyond that.

                          And I don't know any pro-choice Democratic politicians who do not make a moral argument in favor of choice.  Abortion should be rare -- because unwanted pregnancies should be rare -- but the exercise of self-determination by pregnant women should be not simply frequent, but universal.  That is a moral argument.  And it is made.  (If your argument is that politicians should say that abortions should be frequent, or should not address how common they should be, then you're saying that we should not address the disquieted feelings that many in the public -- despite what I'm sure are your best efforts as advocates -- still have about abortion.  In that case, you can say goodbye to Roe.)

                          If you're pointing out that people don't favor greater access to abortion (which is what this diary is about), there's nothing special about abortion in that respect -- people don't favor expending public money on behalf of others generally.  So urbanites don't want to pay taxes for rural abortions, or health care, or electrification.

                          Politicians don't need to give people reasons to be pro-choice; activists do.  As I said, do your job and let politicians do theirs.

                          If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                          ~ Umberto Eco

                          by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:48:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's reciprocal (4+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            annrose, Beket, Major Danby, Womantrust

                            Politicians should reflect their bases.  When politicians don't reflect their bases legislation doesn't reflect the bases.  Yes there is some very cautious advocacy of abortion.  Mostly in very blue areas.  It is overwhelmed by the worry about how it would look if we actually stand up for it.  

                            (If your argument is that politicians should say that abortions should be frequent, or should not address how common they should be, then you're saying that we should not address the disquieted feelings that many in the public -- despite what I'm sure are your best efforts as advocates -- still have about abortion.  In that case, you can say goodbye to Roe.)

                            I see I advocate against the use of the word rare because it's not working in the real world and that means I must be for more and more abortions.  I advocate against demonizing abortion so I must be for lots of abortions.  

                            You don't know me don't make assumptions.  I better just leave this for a little bit.  Everything I'm writing right now turns out to be very rude.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  OK, one last comment (0+ / 0-)

                              I bow to reality.  I'd like to see real work -- beyond anecdotal evidence, with controlled studies -- on whether the assertion made in your penultimate paragraph is true.  If you're right; we should change the language, although I see plenty of obvious downside.  If it turns out that it doesn't really have the pernicious effect you suggest, you have plenty of other battles to fight.  This is an area where abortion activists and campaign professionals could actually work together and do something of value.  But as you suggest, it won't be done tonight, and not by me.

                              P.S. No offense taken.

                              If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                              ~ Umberto Eco

                              by Major Danby on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:43:47 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                          •  That is why you believe we are losing ground? (6+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca,